MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009292765 · doi:10.1080/01621459.2020.1730852

Toward Optimal Fingerprinting in Detection and Attribution of Changes in Climate Extremes

2020· article· en· W3009292765 on OpenAlexaff
Zhuo Wang, Yujing Jiang, Hui Wan, Jun Yan, Xuebin Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Statistical Association · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersUniversity of ConnecticutNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAttributionIndependence (probability theory)EconometricsComputer scienceClimate modelScale (ratio)Extreme value theoryStatisticsClimate changeData miningMathematicsPsychologyEcologyGeographySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

–Detection and attribution of climate change plays a central role in establishing the causal relationship between the observed changes in the climate and their possible causes. Optimal fingerprinting has been widely used as a standard method for detection and attribution analysis for mean climate conditions, but there has been no satisfactory analog for climate extremes. Here, we turn an intuitive concept, which incorporates the expected climate responses to external forcings into the location parameters of the marginal generalized extreme value (GEV) distributions of the observed extremes, to a practical and better-understood method. Marginal approaches based on a weighted sum of marginal GEV score equations are promising for no need to specify the dependence structure. The computational efficiency makes them feasible in handling multiple forcings simultaneously. The method under working independence is recommended because it produces robust results where there are errors-in-variables. Our analyses show human influences on temperature extremes at the subcontinental scale. Compared with previous studies, we detected human influences in a slightly smaller number of regions. This is possibly due to the under-coverage of the confidence intervals in existing works, suggesting the need for careful examinations of the properties of the statistical methods in practice. Supplementary materials for this article, including a standardized description of the materials available for reproducing the work, are available as an online supplement.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Statistical AssociationSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207